Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it is an FCC equipment authorization database, offering no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. It fails to disclose even basic behavioral aspects like whether it is read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified. It is a single fragment that does not convey the tool's purpose or usage. It is not appropriately sized because it lacks essential information that should be present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) but with no annotations and a sparse description, it is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, what the parameter means, or what the output looks like. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single parameter 'q' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent has no clue what 'q' represents. The description adds no value to understanding the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'FCC ID: FCC equipment authorization database' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a generic noun phrase. It lacks a specific verb or action (e.g., lookup, search) and does not clarify what operation the tool performs. This is a tautology as it repeats the name without adding functional meaning.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or any alternatives. It does not mention any specific scenario or comparison with sibling tools. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.